I expected my last two columns about political wars in Brooklyn to attract lots of comments and they did.
Unfortunately, in both cases, this was because they were hijacked by a war of words between Rock Hackshaw and another blogger named JP. The argument got heated, and Rock called JP a racist.
Today, this narrow circle jerk widened as JP posted a spirited defense of himself.
JP is a sporadic Room 8 blogger and poster, with 27 pieces to his credit since 2006. He first came to my attention by posting a piece taking issue with the fact I preferred State Senator John Sabin to his challenger Hiram Monserrate. The piece was notable because JP agreed with me that Monserrate seemed like a thug, but thought this a good quality in an elected; it was also notable for the fact that it was the best parody of Gatemouth since Brooklyn Fats, though Fats had the unfair advantage of my writing his pieces.
In response to one of my recent Brooklyn pieces, Rock had posted a compliment, but hastened to add that it was really a “Vines” column, “Vines” column being the name Rock attaches to the compendiums of trash talk he posts without due diligence, sometimes spread falsehoods, misinformation and outright libel, using the excuse he’s just telling us the gossip that is out there, as if such “actual malice” was its own defense.
I responded that "Vines" columns are based upon rampant speculation and out of date information. My column is up to date and reality based.
I noted Rock had recently posted speculation about an incumbent State Senator possibly not seeking re-election, when that Senator had publicly announced his retirement in January. He also printed an indecipherable piece of wank which managed not only to mangle the names of half the civically active residents of Marine Park, but contained not a single iota of truth. He resurrected the political career of Marty Connor while changing him into a Republican (not even the lying bag of excrement who beat Connor had stooped that low, though he tried). I ended up by noting: finally noted:
So, this is not a "Vines" column. It is a work of non-fiction.
I thought this was sufficiently nasty to make the point, but JP upped the ante considerably:
I don't know what's my favorite part of Gatemouth's comment. The amount of bitchiness and pettiness that it takes to respond to a POSITIVE comment to his column by completely humiliating and eviscerating the commenter, or the fact that a pissant lightweight like Rock Hackshaw deserves to be so thoroughly humiliated and eviscerated by someone that actually knows what he's talking about.
Regardless, I'm glad that I receive notice of Gatemouth's new columns by Facebook so that I can avoid the rest of the unbearable crap on this site. Between Dominic Carter and Rock Hackshaw, I'm not sure who's the worse blogger.
Then came the deluge, and the accusations of bigotry.
As they say in Albany, Rock and JP go back a long way together.
There has been bad blood between Rock and JP since JP had reacted negatively to Rock’s coverage of the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination and posted comments and pieces outlining his differences.
I think JP has been unfairly slandered. There is no doubt he holds Rock in contempt, but his feeling are not based on the color of Rock’s skin, but rather on the contents of Rock’s articles.
To understand this one must examine Rock’s coverage from the time in question, and how he responded to criticism of those columns.
Frankly, though Rock did some of his best writing in early 2008, he was often at his worst.
While working on a possible collection of my writing, I put together a chapter which documented Rock and my’s adventures together covering (and failing to cover) the 2008 Democratic convention as NYS’s DNC designated bloggers, which began with a summary of our prior relationship, such that it was. As part of that, I documented the very matter at hand, and most of what follows comes from that chapter (and this accounts for the voluminous length).
I think what follows documents fairly well why many were critical of Rock’s writing at that time, and why it was not racist to have felt the way JP (and I) did.
By late 2007, Rock was involved in canonizing Barack Obama and demonizing Senator Clinton and her husband who he referred to collectively as “Billary“, in the manner of a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
According to Rock, “the only thing stopping Barack Hussein (Barry) Obama from being the next president of the USA, is an assassination; either a political or physical one.”
Good taste is timeless.
It soon became apparent that Rock saw the Obama campaign as the Second Coming, and himself as John the Baptist, and despite an occasional prescient insight and a good sense of the mechanics of the process, as the months went on, it appeared as if Rock had truly gone off the deep end.
Rock undertook a series of columns which were based on the following theories. 1) I am the greatest pundit in the world, and don‘t get the recognition I deserve because I am black, 2) anyone who disagrees with me is a racist, (3) Billary is the devil incarnate and (4) she must get out of the race now. In all of this, Rock’s fiercest critic was not JP, but EnWhySeaWonk, and their old feud re-arose with new fury.
At the time, I was on self-imposed hiatus, brought about by the fury of a member of the State Legislature who had let me know through intermediaries he was going to try and get me fired from my job. I didn’t know whether he was capable of getting it done, but I knew he was capable of the attempt, so I decided to lay low.
I was, however, still pseudonymously or anonymously pelting spitballs from the sidelines. I suspect that Rock was probably not unaware of the authorship of those comments.
To summarize:
On November 23, 2007, Rock predicted that Barack Obama would win the Iowa caucuses; on January 4, 2008, through the hard work of others, this prediction came true and Rock has yet to stop reminding people of it. On January 5, 2008, Rock predicted an Obama victory in New Hampshire, which failed to emerge. Rock’s response was a January 9 column entitled “Hilary Clinton Stole the New Hampshire Primary and She Should be Punished.”
A Mr. F. U. Hyakawa responded: “Politics isn't fought by the rule of the Marquis of Queensbury; it's Rollerball. Stop whining, stop typing. Get off your ass and knock on doors. New Hampshire is like the Panama Canal. Hillary stole it fair and square.”
In response to this piece, JP posted his own called: “A Rebuttal to Rock Hackshaw’s Libelous Post Regarding the N. H. Primaries”
What was the problem with that? Rock wrote what he felt was true; JP posted a very articulate rebuttal. Both were a bit edgy and both got challenged. Most of what was said was not too far out of bounds, though Rock did seem a bit paranoid at the time about gay people (and everyone else). All in all, fair (even if some of the content was not) comment on all sides.
It's America; what a country!
Rock’s next piece, “Bill and Hillary Clinton_(Billary) Have Blown Off the Black Vote,”
tried to make much of the fact that 17 year old Hillary supported Barry Goldwater for president in 1964, and continued the insinuation that the Clinton committed fraud in New Hampshire, by citing to the wisdom of the delusional Dennis Kucinich. .
An anonymous commentator wrote back:
As an Edwards supporter, I find this all good sport. But, a few points probably should be addressed.
Hillary/Goldwater is probably irrelevant. It differs from Mitt Romney's social issue metamorphose (and Eric Adams' ping-pong party conversion, and Steve Harrison's sudden back flip from conservative to liberal) in at least three ways:
1) the change came with the transition from adult to child as received wisdom gave way to that earned by experience.
2) it come with a paper trail in which the change is credibly explainable as a real evolution in thinking.
3) The course of expedience would probably better have been served the other way.
As to "fraud", which you keep denying that you are bringing up, but most assuredly believe, when one has to cite the wisdom of Dennis Kucinich to justify one's position, it's time to call it a day.
The disingenuousness was Sometimes painful to watch:ROCK: It is not just Dennis Kucinich who questioned the Election Day irregularities, even Cathereine Crier did- amongst many many others. I used him as an example (to my detractors) that I was not just raising false claims as a sore loser. DK was a candidate who only got about 3% of the vote; what was his motivation to offically challenge the results? He is verbally suggesting that Obama won in actuality. He is also suggesting that the present results were actually because of a miscount or something even more nefarious. My info came from Election Day field reports. My detractors were intoning that I was fabricating or bullshitting.
ROCK: I didn't write about allegations of voter fraud because I didn't want to sensationalize; but there were many complaints from the the field. Plus, on Room Eight people just love to attack my info, no matter how many times I am proven right…I personally know of an area where Clinton got around 1100 votes and Obama none (zero). Yet, in this same area Kucinich got about 900. You tell me what you think of this.
Leo Burrely: If what you say is true, it looks like they imported some NYC inspectors to New Hampshire. But, someone putting the wrong info on the wrong line isn't fraud Rock. It happens everywhere, and it usually gets corrected in the final count. But I suspected it didn't happen. If they had anything like that, Obama wouldn't have conceded.
How do you tell when Rock is bullshiting?
His fingers are moving.
ROCK: that what my first thoughts…….YES; my first thoughts were that someone posted Obama's scores in Kucinich's box; that's exactly what I proffered to my lady on election night. No thanks for your derisive comment though: so unnecessary. Do you see why I have to ignore many of you here? You aren't serious.
Ef. Ree Belly: …you accuse Clinton of election fraud, and then admit that what you called fraud was a transcription error.
In the world of libel, this is what is known as "actual malice", meaning a knowing or reckless disregard of the facts. You knew it wasn't fraud and you said it was.
Hillary could actually win this lawsuit; usually a near impossibility for an elected official.
ROCK: PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE……………… I never accused Clinton of election fraud. STOP THIS SHIT. Where did you see this?
Morris Lewinsky: the stuff concerning fraud was fair comment. Rock clearly stated he was not accusing of fraud in a manner equivalent to me saying "I'm not calling Rock a homosexual and will draw not insinuations from the Obama DNA found in the semen on Rock’s necktie.”
Rock’s next very long piece was entitled “Here Are Questions That Tim Russert Failed ToAsk Hilary Rodham Clinton On Meet The Press Yesterday.” As an anonymous commentator, observed, it was just as well, as if Russert has asked those questions, there wouldn't have been enough time for anything else but a few words from the folks at Archer Daniels Midland.
Rock used the occasion to go ballistic about this perfectly accurate observation by Senator Clinton: "I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, 'We are going to do it,' and actually got it accomplished."
Hackshaw seemed to believe that Hillary had transgressed by attacking the holy grail of King’s singular role and making LBJ seem a “legislative magus” (I believe Robert Caro’s most recent LBJ book was called “Master of the Senate”, so she obviously isn‘t the only one). Outraged at Hackshaw’s outrageous assertions that LBJ had to be shamed into supporting civil rights and characterizing LBJ’s role as merely signing the bill, an anonymous commentator exclaimed:
“I Don’t‘ even like Hillary, …but this re-writing of history has got to stop.
LBJ didn't merely sign the Civil Rights Act. The important instrument he wielded was not a pen; it was a jawbone. He whacked Congress upside the face til the deed was done, shamelessly wrapping himself in JFK's bloody shirt to make it happen, and even citing to "We Shall Overcome" in a national address.
Undoubtedly, he needed King and King needed him. LBJ couldn't create the public atmosphere, but he could and did exploit it. Without King, the job probably couldn't have been done.
But the job couldn't have been done with out LBJ either. He seized the moment, he knew the price, and he and his party paid it.
And LBJ didn't need to be shamed, although he (to a degree bordering on perversity) had no shame about shaming others, sharing tales of his servants, servants to America's leader, being forced to defecate on the side of the road. For LBJ, the shame was his own, and he carried it throughout his life as a heavy and guilty burden til he expiated it. But expiate it he did. He finished the job that Lincoln had begun.
For LBJ, forcing the Civil Rights laws down the throat of Congress was the equivalent of slapping the over 500 white people sitting in Congress for his mental health.
So, Rock, yes, LBJ was a legislative genius; shame on you for going to such lengths to deny this elemental truth. Without LBJ King would have had to wait longer.
So Just STFU!
To which Rock despicably responded:
“AGAIN: I will offer LBJs own words: "the hero of civil rights is the American Negro". I didn't say it; HE did. Are you telling me that Nelson Mandela needed DeKlerk to end apartheid? So it took a racist president to get apartheid ended; right? NO. WRONG. It took the sacrifices of the people.”
And the anonymous commentator answered: “Your…comment was a disgrace! How can you compare Johnson to De Klerk? …
De Klerk saw the handwriting on the wall and avoided a blood bath, just in time. Johnson took what may have been inevitable in a generation and fast tracked it, sacrificing his political future, and that of his party.
If you believe what you said, you are either ignorant or delusional.
If you said it just to advance your agenda, you are a pig.”
Another commentator named Lady Bird added: “You are free to express your opinion, but some things are not a matter of opinion; they are a matter of fact. They are either true or false. You can call them holy grail, or you can tell them legend, but doing so does not convert transparent falsehoods into matters over which sincere men can disagree, let alone convert lies into facts. “
And another said: Rock do you honestly feel Johnson bears comparison with De Klerk? Surely, MLK, differences over Vietnam notwithstanding, would disagree. Malcolm might not, but like Hillary, he preferred Goldwater to Johnson (you can look it up).”
Still another added “You are right. It is impossible to have conversations about race in this country. Because people, even liberals committed to civil rights, cannot state the facts without people like Rock Hackshaw calling them racists.
This could have been your Sistah Souljah moment.
You blew it.”
Another added:
ROCK: AGAIN: I will offer LBJs own words: "the hero of civil rights is the American Negro". I didn't say it; HE did.
Yeah Rock he did. He said it to Martin Luther King in answer to King telling him: "You have created a Second Emancipation Proclamation."
So Rock, if I quoted King in order to, as you say, "rest my case", you'd say I was leaving out the context.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle.
King also said: "It is ironic, Mr. President, that after a century, a southern white president would help lead the way toward SALVATION OF THE NEGRO"
To which Johnson responded: "Thank you, reverend. You're the leader who is making it all possible. I'm just following along, trying to do what's right".
A number of possibilities present themselves:
King may have been saying Johnson deserved the credit, but Johnson may have disagreed. But who am I, a white man, to question the words of the man who drank from the Holy Grail? King said Johnson deserves the credit, and since I lack the moral standing to question King, I must defer to his judgment and credit Johnson.
Seriously. While the whole dialogue reeks of a false-modest Alphonse-Gaston vaudeville schtick from both ends, it does play up a fundamental truth. Both men were essential, and both deserve credit for their crucial contributions. We can debate whether Ev Dirksen also should get some props …, but Johnson cannot be debated–he and King were equally important.
There is no need to point out King’s role, which we memorialize this week. But as Johnson's career came to such an ignominious end, it would be nice if this sorry debate didn't obscure the shining moment of his career.
As Nick Kotz, author of "Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King and the Laws that Changed America" has pointed out, Johnson employed "all his political wiles and knowledge…he finally broke a southern filibuster that had stymied civil-rights legislation for decades. He traded hydroelectric dams in the West for votes to break the filibuster. He appealed to reluctant senators to rise above their parochial interests. He heaped political pork, effusive praise and inordinate credit upon Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican minority leader–whose reluctant Midwest Republicans, Johnson knew, were needed for victory."
Rock, Johnson was not as you say "reluctant". He pulled out every stop. He did not, as that ignoramus Charlie Barron (or blowhard Charlie Rangel) said, merely sign the bill. He does not deserve your libel of being compared to De Klerk. Stop making this into what it wasn't. No one was dissing King.
The pattern continued, more Rock rants accusing the Clintons of every evil on the face of the earth, but denying he’d implied they were racists; Wonk offering sharp critiques, anonymous and pseudonymous commentator getting even sharper (among others, there were Yoda, JP, Cynical Negro and Politiko, all of whom came in for their share of abuse), and Rock’s nasty amen corner calling his critics racist and jealous, and Rock ranting over the top. .
People were starting to lose it.
After a self-congratulatory Rock column about his prognostic powers once entitled (but now changed) “I Hate to Say I Told You So,” Nunnally Void commented:
Pish-tosh.
You love to say it. You say it all the time. You even say it in the rare instances where it is true.
I confess; Hillary paid me to blog about LBJ because she wanted to remind people you were a black man, in case they'd forgotten.
I'd forgotten. I always thought you were Wonk's bitch.
And yes, I admit it. you have never directly called Hillary a racist. Just like I've never called you a lying psychotic race baiter.
It like when Monica bent over and saw Bill ogling her. "Mr. President, she said, "are you starring at my legs?"
"No", he relied, I'm way above that.
Rock’s Hillary baiting began to attract the praise of the likes of psychotic right wing blogger VJ Machiavelli. A critic said Hackshaw “…should change his name to Rock Limbaugh.
What's next, Rock, charges about who really killed Vincent Foster?” Rock seemed to confirm this by noting he would not vote for Hillary in a general election, prompting this response:
“That's right; the endless war will continue and expand; the Supreme Court will continue to fill up with more right wing loonies (how old is Stevens anyway? 106?). Who cares about issues when Rock's sacred principle of tit for tat is at stake.
Remember, there is always an "I" in egomaniac!”
At this point, something happened I would have previously thought impossible. Rock’s writing had influenced my vote in an election, and I decided I’d be voting for Clinton.
And I decided to revive my alternate persona, Stoned Crackwhore.
Billary Will Burn in Hell With The Sodomites
posted by Stoned Crackwhore
01/22/2008
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The AP Wire Reports that this piece was posted from the author's blackberry seconds before he was apprehended by the police outside of a gay nightclub in Chelsea, shouting at passer-bys, asking which one of them was EnWhySeaWonk. Police said that while searching him, attendant to an arrest for public drunkenness and disturbing the peace, they found three Saturday Night Specials, an Uzi submachine gun, a box of condoms, a tube of KY Jelly and handwritten list of names which included EnWhySeaWonk, Yoda, Gatemouth, JP, Cynical Negro, Politiko, Kevin Parker, Charlie Rangel, Jacob Walthour, Matthieu Eugene and Yvette and Una Clarke.]
As my daddy used to say, “Man plans and God laughs”; just when you think you are on top of the world you get bowled a googly. Nonetheless, there is a third point to the hat trick: “Man plans, God laughs, but Stoned Crackwhore prognosticates”. When it comes to saying sooth and speaking truth, old Nostradamus is to ole Stone as a one hit wonder like Smiley Culture is to the Mighty Mighty Sparrow. But while Uncle Stoney is channeling Sparrow, all the other bloggers are eating crow. Maybe they should try it jerked (no pun intended Wonk). LOL!
I am not overrating myself; I am just giving you the FACTS. I am quite safe in who I am. It is always easy after the event to say and call it; but were you (anyone) brave enough to go out on a limb, over and over, while being unafraid of risking credibility. That's the point here; and the main point here. I have been in political trenches all my life and in the womb; plus I studied political science and graduated from an ivy league university. It is easy for most folks to put down; but somehow it is difficult to build up or give credit where it was due. Some people need to go back and look at their respective responses to my observations and / or predictions here. It could be quite edifying.
That last paragraph and the page after frightening page which followed, was, with the exception of the long and comprehensive list of sources proving the Clinton’s murdered Vincent Foster, composed almost entirely of quotations by Rock from the comments threads on his pieces, all strung together like so:
I specifically stated from the jump I never called her (HRC)a racist or a murderer -but they said I did. Same for crook, dishonest and such. I laid my argument out and they distorted, embellished and exaggerated my words or points to try to smear me. They also said that it was libelous. Given the many lawyers at the Clinton's disposal do you think I wouldn't have been sued by now; given all the writings I have laid out here for years?
They joined in the attack as blindly as bats fly. With each passing day media sources confirm the basic premise(s) of my columns; but they have never been honest enough to say: well, maybe we jumped to judgement and rushed to conclusions. Now we see that the re-count officials are admitting election irregularities. TOO MUCH FOR THEM TO CONCEDE THAT STONED WASN'T JUST SPEWING SOUR GRAPES AND THAT HIS SOURCES ARE GENERALLY ACCURATE. I said "HRC assassinated Obama", with her dirty campaign.
They dislike me because I am a black man who is brave enough to take a public position against gay marriage. All sorts of threaths from anonymous people. enough already. I get the most comments here, and I defend my columns more than anyone else here; and this isn't even up for discussion. I get more comments by maybe twenty times or more my nearest comparitive fellow blogger on Room 8. And yet they make this preposterous claim that I do not defend what I write. WHY? Because I choose too ignore those who try to denigrate me, or those who I find intellectually dishonest. They also hate the fact that I am the most popular blogger here; it galls them. They try to put my writings down in subtle and not too subtle ways. But guess what: they all are so friggin fascinated with the varied stuff I write that they read it voraciously.
I have been targeted on these blogs for years now. So the question became: what do I do in return. I chose to hit back (my perogative); some of you don't like this; fine (your perogative). I also chose to rub their noses in the sand whenever my predictions came true (again my perogative), because it was my only other way of hiting back. If my ego was so whacked as you imply, I would sinply stop writing and not take this abuse; but through calls and e-mails, scores of people have begged me over and over to stay wriitng. I am dissappointed in the fact that you guys see the attacks but close your eyes.
You see the truth but yet you close your eyes. They have been ganging up on me here for years. Maybe you don't get it. Question: is it because of my race and/ or ethnicity? I try not to go there but sometimes I wonder.
Stoney‘s picture was a Wonk photoshop of Rock smoking a huge doobie; at the end was another where Rock appeared in drag. When Rock had Gur remove the stogie picture, I replaced it with one of Rock’s old nemesis, former Councilwoman Una Clarke, the mother of Rock’s other nemesis, Congresswoman Yvette. After this, Rock, who previously treated Una in terms slightly less flattering than those he’d reserved for Hillary, expressed his outrage about the slur on this fine woman in a piece called “Crossing the bound of Propriety.” I then changed Stoney’s picture to that of a black sheep.
By the time of his next piece, Rock had shut down his comment section. Stoney’s response was a piece called “You Can Run, But You Can’t Hide,” the entirety of which was an invite to post comments to Rock’s piece in Stoney’s comments section instead. Soon Stoney’s piece was a far hotter topic on Room 8’s hotlist than was Rock’s.
As one commentator noted: “it is clear that people are more interested in seeing Rock get baited until they can see him explode than they are in hearing him prognosticate and pontificate. The returns are in and like Obama's two to one victory, the numbers remain the numbers no matter how hard you spin them.” Another said “Stoned Crackwhore is Obama; Rock is Duncan Hunter.”
And, of course, Rock took the bait by entering the fray.
By now, Rock was calling himself a sage for predicting the Obama victory in South Carolina. One commentator challenged Rock:
“Name one commentator, just one, in the continental United states, it's territories, or Western Europe, who predicted anyone but Obama was winning SC (and Elizabeth Edwards don't count).” Another noted “You were admirably early on Iowa, and excusably wrong on New Hampshire, but here you were merely one of a pack. You were right, so chalk it up as a victory, but it ain't walkin on water.”
Rock now made a promise he was now going to post only one piece a week. Rock’s Next opus was called “Note To Barack Obama: Tighten the Screws, Now,” hailing Obama’s endorsement by both Senators from Massachusetts.
Stoney Responded:
Note to EnWhySeaWonk; Tighten the Screws, Now”posted by Stoned Crackwhore
01/27/2008
So, a day after Rock promises to post articles only once a week, he posts another piece about (SUPRISE!). Obama; this time, without the simple reality check of a comments section. Thus, we are forced to hear John Kerry's endorsement called significant, with no place to laugh out loud. As to Teddy Kennedy, does anyone really believe that, if he'd endorsed Hillary, you wouldn't be hearing Rock re-hashing every detail of Chappaquiddick, complete with comparisons to Juanita Broderick's alleged rape by Billary?
Once again, those with something to say about Rock's work are invited to post here.
Don't be shy; don't feel you need to say anything novel, interesting, clever, or even sensible. Lord knows Rock doesn’t.
It seemed as if to Rock, the only acceptable comments were:
1) Rock you're a genius.
2) Rock, you were first
3) Rock, all your critics are jealous
4) It must be because Rock is black
5) when did Rock ever say that?
6) Billary is going to hell
Rock re-opened his comments section, and his next piece criticized the insane NY Chapter of the National Organization for Women, lead by the psychotic Marcia Pappas, for its blistering comments criticizing the Kennedy endorsement of Obama, and blaming the Clintons for it, inspiring this exchange:
ROCK: Bill Clinton has hurt too many women with his doggy- like behavior.
KOPECHNIE: That's right. Contrast this to the exemplary behavior of Ted Kennedy.
There was no cum stain at Chappaquiddick because it got washed out in the bay.
Faced with Rock’s comments about Hillary playing the women card and Bill’s infidelities, a more circumspect commentator noted:
NOW is a disgrace. Its over-the-top paranoiac identity politics was an embarrassment.
Mostly it reminded me of the irrational ravings I have read here. Ms. Pappas is Rock Hackshaw with a uterus.
No, Rock, I don't believe Billary is above playing "Cunt Politics", just like I don't believe Obama is above playing the race card, but as they admirably showed in the latest debate they are both far better than one trick ponies.
Unlike you.
However, what I do believe is that the Clintons are too smart to have found the Pappas outburst anything but an inconvenient embarrassment. To blame them for that imbecile would be like blaming Obama for you, and HE DESERVES BETTER!
I do want to thank you though for restoration of the comments section. Reading those awful Crackwhore parodies of you was like hearing too much heavy metal in quadraphonic sound.
Yuck!
Glad you grew back your pair.
Still another had this to say:
Even Mike Huckabee declined to make rude comments about the Clintons’ family life. In fact, he extolled their staying together for the sake of their child, who seems to have turned out quite well, thanks in no small part to her caring, intact family.
What an example to others: "Work it out, despite adversity"
To go after Hillary on this is, if anything blaming the victim.
What does Rock Hackshaw tell a woman with a black eye?
Nothing; he already told her once.
And, hey Emmett Till, should have known better than to whistle at the white lady. If he'd minded the manners he learned in church, none of it would have happened.
What stupid tripe. The whole column's attitude towards women in general, and Hillary and particular is inconsistent only in that it veers wildly between patronizing and abusive. Victim blaming is emblematic of the evils of the white male society you claim to abhor, but only seek to replicate in sepia tone, as your keep em barefoot and pregnant attitude about abortion confirms.
NOW went overboard and over the top. Yours is a response in kind.
Maybe Ms. Pappas could take you as a date to a Super Tuesday Party. The two of you are practically mirror image reflections of each other.
Rock finally cracked wide open after posting “Hello Super Tuesday I’m Gonna Pin a Name on You After the Vote is Counted Tuesday: Billary‘s Waterloo,” another of his “Rocky the Greek Hachsnyder” pieces, which began:
“I didn’t want to do a pre-Super Tuesday column; I really didn’t. I am so tired of all the bullshit on these blogs, coming from anonymous attackers not wanting intelligent discourse- but just wanting to get their rocks off (and aimed at me of course)- that I thought about taking a pass. However, I have had so many requests for such a column, that I couldn’t wait till next week (to do my now deliberate: one a week column); so here I am; a few days early.
One hundred and ninety three years ago, Napoleon Bonaparte of France fought a battle against the British, and lost at Waterloo; this signaled the beginning of the end of Napoleon’s colorful reign. On Super Tuesday, Bill and Hillary Clinton will meet their Waterloo, when they go into political battle with Barack Hussein Obama in about two dozen varied states. At the end of the night, it will be clear to near everyone (bar the die-hard Clinton-fanatics) that the Clinton dynasty is coming to an end.
Super Tuesday (Feb.5th, 2008) will leave Hillary Clinton gasping for oxygen, in trying to keep up the delegate pace with Obama. Sure she will win the popular vote in some of the states up for grabs; and sure she will win some of the delegates up for grabs; but at the end of the night: she will still be lined up behind Obama in the delegate count. This is where the end for Billary begins…”
The thread immediately degenerated into a shouting match, mostly with Wonk, with Rock’s amen corner joining in, and the usual accusations of racism and jealousy, occasional threats of violence and further threats of Rock quitting the blog.
Said one commentator: “No doubt Rock has his fans, but one doubts they come out five-at-a-time in one 14 minute clusterfuck using language Rock's already used on the blogs.
Not unless it was an in-class assignment where Rock teaches.”
And then, to confirm this observation came the following two posts:
Many of us who are regulars to this site have become increasingly disturbed by these wicked attacks on Rock Hackshaw by what we feel is a handful of bigots. We are seeing the tone of these attacks change with every column he prints. It is time for the owners of this site to put an end to this. As much as we love Rock's columns we will avoid this site until it cleans up itself and its act. The petty squabbling is serving no purpose here. Wonk and the others should be banned from this site. They are trying to silence an outspoken black voice for change.
And
I said it before and I will say it again if Rock was a white man he would be on CNN. They will never appreciate a black man on Room 8. Leave the blog Rock. To hell wid them.
Both these comments appeared under Rock’s name, with Rock’s picture. He forgotten to sign out of his account before trying to sock-puppet some “anonymous” comments. Soon, Rock had this to say:
YES: I lent two of my students my password.
THE COMMENTS ABOVE WERE FROM TWO OF MY STUDENTS WHO I LENT MY PASSWORD AND COMPUTER TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES.I HOPE THE EDITORS GET THE POINT AND PURPOSE. SOME FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. Signed; Rock H. E. J. Hackshaw.
After this one more comment appeared with Rock’s name and picture, perhaps in a pathetic attempt to bolster Rock’s credibility; it read:
SORRY PROFESSOR ROCK, I DID IT AGAIN.
Wonk and Stoney both appeared with incredibly nasty pieces taking Rock to the woodshed. Stoney’s ““Hello, Super Tuesday; I’m gonna pin a name on you; after the vote is counted Tuesday: Rock’s Waterloo,” an extremely nasty parody, was deleted by Ben, who noted “The audience for scathing satire directed at your average blogger is really small. (Not that I'm not a member of that audience.)” All that survives is a short excerpt on “Daylife Source Hub” and another portion which was saved in my email:
“I didn’t want to do another Hackshaw column; I really didn’t. I am so tired of all the bullshit on these blogs, coming from egomaniacal thin-skinned bloggers not wanting intelligent discourse- but just wanting to WONK away to get their ROCKS off (and aim at me, of course)- that I thought about taking a pass. However, I have had so many requests for such a column, and so tempting a target I couldn’t wait.
One hundred and ninety three years ago, Napoleon Bonaparte of France fought a battle against the British, and lost at Waterloo; this signaled the beginning of the end of Napoleon’s colorful reign. On Super Tuesday, blogger Rock Hackshaw met his Waterloo. At the end of the day, it was clear to nearly everyone (bar the die-hard Rock-fanatics) that the Rock regency has come to an end.
Super Tuesday (Feb.5th, 2008) has left Rock Hackshaw gasping for oxygen; at the end of the night he was exposed as fraud. This is where the end for Rock begins.
Beyond that, I do recall that it mostly concerned Stoney sock-pupetting his own pieces and getting caught.
Meanwhile, on Wonk’s thread, Rock was accused of resurrecting “the entire Wax Museum of Exhibits from Richard Mellon Sciafe's Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.” and was asked “Are you a fucking retard, or do you just play one on the blogs?” Seemingly in answer to the question, Rock admitted to voting for Nader against Gore, which prompted a reader to say:
“The line about Nader says everything about you I need to know. It because of people like you that Bush is in the White House and thousands have died. Hope you are proud. And I bet you are.”
Room 8, had seen bloggers who'd had personal information revealed about them, had their employers approached, had people threaten their jobs, and had harassing phone calls. Rock had a few people disagree with some of his arguable contentions.
As Domestic Partner once said, “my heart bleeds borsht.” Wonk followed up with a photo-shop of Rock wearing a halo.
That sums up most of the worst of the sparring,; later on, spirited arguments about seating the Michigan and Florida delegations, and who won Texas also entailed; however, while they were heated, they were relatively civil.
On the other hand, this was not the case concerning Rock’s Memo to the Fox News Network, alerting them to the fact that Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity were anti-Obama and violated journalistic standards.
As one commentator noted:
They're not anti-Obama; they're anti-Democrat. he's the presumptive nominee, so they're trying to destroy him.
And don't send a memo to Fox criticizing a particular personality for violating the standards of journalism. Fox is not a journalistic endeavor; it's a propaganda machine.
For once Rock, Hillary Clinton is right. Ever hear of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? This is it! I know you must be disappointed, since you've been relying upon them for most of your hate-Clinton garbage, but now you know: you can never trust the veracity of any Fox info concerning any Democrat. Ever. Period.
Sad it took you so long to get this.
Criticizing Fox for being unjournalistic is like criticizing Hitler for bad table manners
and
Although Fox clearly enjoys exploiting racism if it serves their purposes, or crying racism, if, a la Clarence Thomas talking about hi-tech lynchings, that serves their evil purposes, this is NOT about race.
If you could see life through any other prism, you might have noticed they did the same thing to John Kerry. It's called swiftboating.
They do to any Democrat, regardless of color.
and
As long as Fox was spreading lies about Hillary, you had no problem. In fact, you sat up every night eagerly writing down every juicy nugget.
Lie down with dogs…
and
“Fox is a despicable institution. But Rock treats them as if they violated standards of journalism in this one instance, and should be held to task for it, when any imbecile can see that Fox itself is the violation of journalistic standards. How can Rock take O’Reilly and Hanatty to task and ask Fox to discipline them, when they are just company men playing it the company way?
Perhaps it's because this stuff never bothered Rock previously. Fact is, Rock's assertions about the Clintons sound like the ravings of O'Reilly and Hanatty. When it comes to Billary, Rock is just an echo chamber for the vast right noise machine.”
Rock actually shut down that thread because he found these remarks non-germane, as they rejected his premise. Didn’t Rock get it? To say Fox was anti-Obama sort of misses the point, like saying the Nazis had something against the Frank family.
As a writer on one of Wonk's threads noted:
Fox targetted Obama as they targetted John Kerry and the Clintons before him. Now that Obama was the presumptive Democratic nominee, he became their target (prior to that, they may actually have been a bit soft on him)….I'll acknowledge that Fox happily uses racism as one of the many arrows in its anti-Democratic quiver. However, they've been just as happy to play the race card themselves when someone attacks Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice. They are pigs, but race is not the issue for them; winning the race is the issue.
Rock categorically refuses to answer intelligent people who disagree with him, preferring to call them racists, mischaracterize their comments, or say they are jealous while denying the obvious implications of what he just said a minute before.
Truth was, Rock’s posts often contained assertions which were over the top; but even if they did not, he was not thereby immune from criticism. Sometimes (most of the time) the criticism was fair; sometimes it was not. But it did not matter, because Rock and his Amen Corner dismissed nearly all of it as racist regardless of whether it was merited or not.
And he is doing so again.
When people call me long winded, boring, unfair, rude, tasteless, a clone of Vito Lopez, etc., I do not call them anti-Semites.
Even though, in my heart, I know that they are.
Rock needs to chill.